Sometimes I cannot even spell “inerrancy” correctly. The term is used as a ‘litmus’ test of who is in and who is out. I had an OT scholar friend tell me that if someone tells him there are mistakes in the bible his standard reply is, “So what?”. Honestly, other parts of World Christianity probably wonder why we are so hung up on this issue. I also think the thought leaders are placing undue pressure on young Christians with this concept as is the idea that you have to believe in young earth creation. These concepts are more divisive than helpful. The Chicago group were mostly theologians or philosophers thus embracing the deductive method, focusing on God’s truthfulness or trustworthiness (this, of course, is a simplification). A biblical scholar would study the Word Inductively, and say that nowhere does the bible claim that every word was infallible or without error in the original documents. Most OT scholars seem to be non-plussed even if there are so- called “inaccuracies” in certain texts. Even if there are ‘errors’ we find no major doctrine affected. On the other hand, some are prone to jump to the conclusion of ‘error’ when in fact there are legitimate alternatives at hand. Why don’t we spend more time on actually ‘reading’ the Word and applying its Truths to our lives instead of writing formulations that confuse and divide the Church. I do not believe “inerrancy” as described by a select few is a helpful model for us to follow. Some professors get in trouble even if they deem certain passages ‘apocalyptic’ if this interpretation is deemed a threat to a particular form of inerrancy. If a certain concept results in undue division and animosity in the Church than I think it is time to start questioning motives. We have the Bible He meant us to have, as is, with all it’s ambiguities that entail Divine and Human interaction and cooperation.
This is true. While you may not agree with Mr. Olson, I would highly recommend reading parts of his blog.
Not just for conservative circles, but many seminaries require instructors to affirm the Chicago Statement on inerrancy, and the Evangelical Theological Society requires an affirmation of inerrancy for membership, and it has adopted the Chicago Statement as the guiding definition of that requirement. In effect, this hinders evangelical scholars from even attempting to rethink the doctrine of the word of God. It also hinders discussion about how to interpret certain passages of Scripture. Here is an example involving the interpretation of a difficult passage in Matthew 27:51-54. The president of the largest Southern Baptist seminary is pushing for an author to recant his interpretation or face possible expulsion from the society.
I’m still waiting for an evangelical scholar to rethink inerrancy and the doctrine of the word of God. Lausanne is a good place to start, but it’s just that – a start. Perhaps, Jay, you can help me out one day? Finish your education and write a dissertation on the subject? 
Ah, yes. The Mike Licona thing. Dr. James White (whose podcast I listen to rather religiously) commented on that recently.
A dissertation on inerrancy? Tall order. We’ll see what happens. 
Inductive reasoning has its problems. Even secular scholars admit that much. Arguments from silence are rarely valid.
Since it is a little hard to find, here is a link to Olson’s blog on inerrancy. Interesting reading.
That passage is what I was referring to without “referring” to. I did not want to bring up a political issue to distract from the discussion. I have been to a yearly ETS event and have met some top notch scholars involved in these debates. They are gracious men but some of the things they have said and done concerning this issue baffles me and I strongly disagree with how they have disparaged truth-seeking scholarship.
That is true, but I think this might, in part, explain the differences in opinion between OT biblical scholars vs. NT theologians and christian philosophers. When dealing with Scripture, we are dealing with something truly unique, meaning God has chosen to speak through jars of clay.
Thanks for the great NT Wright link. Great read.
They sell the Counterpoints book in the bookstore here on campus. I might have to pick it up.
If only I had a Kindle. I could get the iPhone app, but I dislike reading things on my phone. 
Thanks, though.
You should ask for one for Christmas. And then get on Zondervan Academic’s e-mail list. A couple times a year they put some nice nerdy theology books (e-version) on sale for like 95% off for a day or two.
I personally prefer reading real books as well, but FWIW, you can read Kindle books online through your Amazon account at a computer, which is lots better than a phone. In case being cheap ever trumps reading pleasure.
The Chicago statement says:
We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ. We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the church (Article 19).
It affirms that the doctrine of inerrancy is “vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith” and that to deny it has grave consequences for the individual and the church. However, this statement also makes clear that belief in inerrancy is not necessary for salvation.
While inerrancy is crucial for understanding the Christian faith and “increasing conformity to the image of Christ,” a person does not have to hold to it to be a Christian. Author: RC Sproul
For so much to depend on something as frail as inerrancy … it’s bound to end badly:
-
stars falling to the surface of the earth?
-
Abraham consorting with Philistines 800 years before they even arrive?
-
Abraham pretending to be a brother to his wife of 60+ years because of her ravishing beauty?
-
the Great Flood wiping out the world, including Egyptian society, sometime after the 2nd Dynasty and before the 10th dynasty ? - - and yet not a single document or archaeological find that supports such a flood?
-
the complete absence of Egyptian soldiers, messengers and supply trains through Palestine and the Levant from Genesis to the adulthood of Solomon? - - when Egyptians regularly patrolled their rear areas as they continued to assert their authority deep into Syria?
What could be worse for inerrancy … than to be so easily errant?
- You’re referring to Dan 8:10, Rev 6:13;8:10;9:1. Anyways, Matt 24:29 perhaps is speaking of shooting stars - which lies behind this part if imagery but refers to Isa 34:4. In ancient mythology the heavenly bodies are or represent supernatural powers. Their supernatural powers are thrown into disarray when God approaches - it speaks of God’s intervention in judgement - it is not literal - poetry
- You best be careful with #3! Some today might object!!
- Philistines (sea people) during Abraham’s day were not the mighty nation that rose later
- People debate world-wide or local. Why would the Egyptians record it? Anyways, you can use the same logic regarding the Egyptian to Aristotle. We only have 49 copies but 1400 years gap between the original and the copies. Homer, the OT and NT are better. Mind you, the Egyptians papyrus medical things are in better condition placed between legs of mummies and preserved.
- Not sure what you’re getting at
George, if you’re hell-bent on proving the Bible to be in error, then it will be in error. You’ve begun with the presupposition that it can’t possibly be correct because other sources deem it incorrect, when the proper attitude should be to place the Bible above other sources; a higher authority cannot be disproven by a lower authority, nor can a lower authority prove the higher authority.
I was given a Barnes and Noble Nook for my 14th birthday. I hardly ever use it, but I’ll bet B&N has the Counterpoints book for sale. I’ll check there.
@AdCaelumEo, only one’s eyes and ears witness to truth can tell us whether the Bible should be placed “above [all] other sources”.
My Eyes and Ears tell me the Earth is genuinely millions of years old.
… that the fossil record is incompatible with the emergence of large mammals virtually simultaneously with the emergence of dinosaurs…that the Great Flood could have happened in the middle of the first dynasties of Egyptian civilization…
So I am pretty confident that parts of the Bible have to be taken down from the top shelf.
Number 3 is hilarious.
As for the Philistines… that’s is correct … and yet the Bible insists on the idea that they are the same people in the same location.
Why would the Egyptians record it? Exactly? Either the early dynasties would be completely unknown… and not available to Egyptian writers… or there was no global flood.
As for #5… the entire context of Bible chronology from Genesis up to Solomon, assumes that the Egyptians had no significant presence in the Levant… when in fact Egyptian presence in this region all the way to the core of Syrian territories is well documented from the expulsion of the Hyksos to the final rebellion of the Philistines (c. 1130 BCE).
The fact the Egyptians are not mentioned in this pivotal hegemony is the clearest indication that the writers of the Bible simply didn’t know that the Egyptians were so deployed… and thus clearly written in ignorance of some of the most crucial centuries of world history.
The Bible is not history - - it is a figurative approach to history.